HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-02-2002 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
January 2, 2002
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:15 p.m., Wednesday,
January 2, 2002, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Colclough, Boyles, Mays, Kuhlke, Hankerson, Shepard,
Beard, Cheek, Williams and Bridges, members of the Augusta Richmond County
Commission.
Also Present: Jim Wall, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; Lena Bonner,
Clerk of Commission.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any addition or deletion from the agenda, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: No, sir, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right, let’s move along with our delegation then.
The Clerk: Okay.
DELEGATION:
Mr. Brian Green
RE: Train Traffic in Downtown Augusta
Mr. Mayor: Brian, if you would come up to the podium. I remind you you have
five minutes. Thank you.
Mr. Green: Afternoon, gentlemen. Commission, Mayor. Congratulations to the
new Commissioners, Mr. Boyles and Mr. Hankerson. The reason I’m here today is on
behalf of a non-profit group called Concerned Citizens of Augusta, just to make a
suggestion to the city and give you possibly an alternative to another program that I
understand is in the making, a program called Downtown Development that deals with
the train traffic congestion. As I understand the study and all that, the study has been
done and complete concerning this project that’s in the making. Again, this project I’m
talking about is the Downtown Development Project. If you look on your diagrams, and
excuse the art work, I’m not going to stop my day job to start drafting. But if you look on
your diagrams there, you see a drawing of certain roads and the train diagram as well.
This is just really to give you an overview. If you all are interested, we can get together
later. The reason I’m bringing this to you today instead of other departments and all, I
would like for you gentlemen to take a look at it, and if we can get together on it later, we
can do so, and that you would use your authority to maybe suggest that the Engineering
Department maybe take a strong look at this proposal. Now, this proposal that I have is
called Train Traffic Congestion Project. I’m going to refer to it later as TTCP, for the
consideration of time. Benefits and goals: this program offers a straight-forward plan at
1
a substantial cost to the city. I have wrote there, could cost much less than $50,000.
That’s a very safe bet. Compared to the cost of the program that I’m hearing that has
been tentatively approved. If implemented, remaining funds could be used to fill
necessary vacancies within the Traffic Engineering Department and increase cash
reserves. These are just some of the benefits we’ve come up. Does not require the
personnel or manpower that a high cost monitoring project requires. Also, less likelihood
of technical malfunctions and easily meets federal requirements and those of CSX and
Norfolk rail lines. On the next page, continued, what is needed for this project.
Reconfirmation of federal and railroad companies’ requirements. Obvious projects costs.
Committed start and completion date. A daily projected schedule from both railroad
companies. An established community service announcement plan featuring local media,
television, newspaper, radio and broadcast. Now on the second page you’ll see -- I’m
sorry. If you’ll go back to the page that shows you a drawing of two things. You’ll
notice two signs, it says train under way at Walton Way when light is flashing and you’ll
notice another sign that says train traffic detour when train is on the way. Now I went
and consulted with certain experts on this. One train, you’re seeing $1,000. That figure
represents $1,000, is roughly what it will cost to make one of these signs here. Mr.
Shepard, it kind of goes in line with what you said. I notice you’ve got the train display,
Mayor, you had one up there earlier. Well, the second one is the key. Train traffic detour
when train is underway. Basically what this, basically what this program is designed, the
reason I had the motivation to come forward with this suggestion is the project that I
understand that’s underway, it deals with monitoring. You’re looking at yearly costs,
high tech equipment, and it deals with a read out. Like there’s a train coming, it shows
you the read out. That’s a very high tech system. I’m sure if implemented it will work
very well. But my program is just a little bit more straight forward, and in closing, I’d
just like to say, just using the train traffic detours. The other thing, using the local media,
if we can get out proper notices to people, using the newspaper, radio, television, to say
hey, we’re expecting two trains today, and yes, the trains do have an idea of when their
trains are coming through town, it could possibly alleviate the traffic, and once again,
free up monies to be used otherwise. And the last thing I’d like to say is this footnote.
Hopefully I can come back and meet with y’all again and have a little more time. The
train traffic at Laney Walker and Twiggs Street, there are two train crossings. One is
underneath the overpass and another one is near Twiggs Street. You really need to look
at the condition of that road and also the trains that come down that road come down that
crossing, Mayor, with no warning signals whatsoever, they just honk their horns very
loud, and that’s just a tragedy waiting to happen, tragedy waiting to happen. And the
th
train crossing at 5 and Broad Street are in serious condition of road improvement. I just
had to rattle along kind of fast. I appreciate your time and hopefully we can meet again
on this subject.
Mr. Mayor: Brian, thank you very much for the energy that you put into this and
the research you’ve done, and your enthusiasm for helping us deal with the rail issue in
this town. I’d like to recognize Commissioner Shepard, who chairs our Rail
Subcommittee.
2
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Green, I do want to thank you for
bringing this attention to this addition again. It’s an issue that I’ve certainly been
involved for four years and hope to be involved with it at least four more and we will be
hopefully having a re-authorization by the Engineering Services Committee of the
Railway Trains and Traffic Committee and will be having a meeting of that committee
early on the near year and we want you to be put, Madame Clerk, on the invitation list so
that you can bring this idea to us. We’re looking for all kind of cost-effective ideas for
improving the train traffic, solutions that are simple and cost effective, is something that
this Commissioner is very much in favor of. Commissioner Williams was joking with
me earlier and said Steve, did you get any switches for Christmas? I said well I’m hoping
by next Christmas we’ll have a fifth hydro switch, so that would help the train
congestion. But these ideas welcome, and I’d move, Mr. Mayor, that we refer this to the
Railway Trains and Traffic Subcommittee.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: There is a second to that motion. Discussion? All in favor --
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir? Go ahead.
Mr. Cheek: Just some brief discussion. If this city has an opportunity within the
next 50 years to have the rail traffic moved off of Broad Street, that presents itself in the
crossing of the Bobby Jones Bridge over in Carolina. I know that they will, but in the
effort not to leave things unsaid, I hope we will get a full list of contact points and
become fully aware of what’s going on in Georgia, South Carolina and in Washington, as
it related to this project, because, ladies and gentlemen, I can assure you if we sit back
and don’t get a handle on this situation and let our interests be known, then our
grandchildren’s grandchildren will be stopped by trains on Broad Street. So I’m hoping
that we will seize this initiative and see it through and as a city back the Rail Committee
and the actions of this Commission in working with the two states and the federal
government to resolve this problem.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much. Mr. Cheek, for your information and the
information of the other Commissioners and those present, we did begin our discussions
with Norfolk Southern last year, 2001, for that potential relocation. We’ve already talked
with them and had the vice president and engineering people from Atlanta down here for
those discussions. We are very keen to the opportunity that we have with that potential
river crossing. We have a motion to send this to the Rail Subcommittee. All in favor
please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next item?
3
The Clerk: The next item is election of officers:
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
Mayor Pro Tempore for 2002
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: As you know, as this meeting, we re-organize the meeting. We elect
a Mayor Pro Tempore who can serve for a two-year term, and we also appoint the
standing committees. The Chair will recognize Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I have the distinct pleasure this day of nominating a
person I have been fortunate enough to work with for years in organizing neighborhoods
and working towards basically turning places in Augusta around that have been
neglected. And with great pride that I look beyond the color line, that I look beyond the
things that have held this city back, to a person who is infinitely qualified, having shown
so both on this board and within the community, I would like to nominate the Hon.
Richard Colclough to be our Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor: We have a nomination for Commissioner Colclough. Are there any
other nominations?
Mr. Bridges: I move nominations be closed.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objections? Nominations are closed. Do we have a motion to
elect Mr. Colclough by acclamation?
Mr. Shepard: So move.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection?
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Congratulations, Richard.
Mr. Colclough: Thank you. And I would just like to thank my Commissioners
for appointment to this very important position, and I promise you that I will give this job
for the next two years 100% of my time. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
4
APPOINTMENTS:
A. Assignment of Standing Committees 2002-2004
??
Administrative Services Committee
??
Engineering Services Committee
??
Finance Committee
??
Public Safety Committee
??
Public Services Committee
Mr. Mayor: Now under the rules of the Commission, the Mayor and the Mayor
Pro Tem will confer on the assignment of the standing committees for 2002-2004, so
we’ll take a recess while Richard and I get together.
(Recess)
Mr. Mayor: The Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem have met in accordance with the
rules of the Commission and have discussed the appointment of the standing committees
for 2002-2004, and we are unable to agree, so it brings it to the Commission floor. Mr.
Colclough, do you have a motion?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, I make the motion that we pass the Committee
assignments as presented. Madame Clerk has the list.
The Clerk:
??
Administrative Services - Lee Beard, Chairman; Bill Kuhlke, Co-
Chairman; Bobby Hankerson, Andy Cheek
??
Public Safety - Marion Williams, Chairman; Tommy Boyles, Co-
Chairman; Steve Shepard, Lee Beard
??
Engineering Services - Andy Cheek, Chairman; Richard Colclough, Co-
Chairman; Willie Mays, Tommy Boyles
??
Public Services - Willie Mays, Chairman; Ulmer Bridges, Co-Chairman;
Bill Kuhlke, Richard Colclough
??
Finance - Steve Shepard, Chairman; Bobby Hankerson, Co-Chairman;
Ulmer Bridges, Marion Williams
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I’d like to make a substitute motion for appointment of the
Committees, Mr. Mayor. For Administrative Services Committee, I’d appoint Bill
Kuhlke as chairman with members Lee Beard, Any Cheek and Bobby Hankerson. On
Engineering Services Committee, Ulmer Bridges, Chairman; Tommy Boyles, Co-
5
Chairman; Richard Colclough and Willie Mays. Public Safety Committee, Mr. Beard,
Chairman; Mr. Williams, Co-Chairman; Mr. Boyles and myself. Public Services
Committee, Mr. Mays, Chairman; Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Colclough. On
Finance Committee, myself as Chairman, Mr. Hankerson, Mr. Ulmer Bridges and Mr.
Marion Williams as Co-Chairman.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: The motion has been seconded. Discussion on the motions? All
right, we’ll vote first on the substitute motion, the slate from Mr. Shepard. All in favor,
please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Beard, Mr. Hankerson, Mr. Williams, Mr. Mays, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Colclough vote
No.
Motion fails 4-6.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to the original motion. I don’t believe I heard a second,
but just to clarify the record, did we get a second to that?
The Clerk: No, sir, we did not.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We do have a second. All right. So that takes us to the original
motion. Any discussion? All in favor of the original motion as presented by the Mayor
Pro Tem, please vote aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Bridges, Mr. Shepard and Mr. Kuhlke vote No.
Motion carries 7-3.
Mr. Mayor: Next item?
The Clerk:
B. Assignment of Ex-Officio members to various ARC Boards Commissions and
Authorities
??
Richmond County Board of Health
??
Augusta Aviation Commission-Bush Field
??
Arts Council
??
Planning Commission
??
Library Board
??
Daniel Field Airport Commission
6
??
Metro Augusta Convention & Visitors Bureau
??
Richmond County Board of Education
??
Family Connection
??
Richmond County Hospital Authority
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I think you have a list of members.
Mr. Colclough: I make a motion that we accept the list as presented to the Clerk.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Madame Clerk?
The Clerk:
??
Richmond County Board of Health (Andy Cheek)
??
Augusta Aviation Commission-Bush Field (Richard Colclough)
??
Arts Council (Bill Kuhlke)
??
Planning Commission (Marion Williams)
??
Library Board (Steve Shepard)
??
Daniel Field Airport Commission (Tommy Boyles)
??
Metro Augusta Convention & Visitors Bureau (Willie Mays)
??
Richmond County Board of Education (Ulmer Bridges)
??
Family Connection (Bobby Hankerson)
??
Richmond County Hospital Authority (Lee Beard)
Mr. Williams: Second that, Mr. Mayor, if we didn’t get a second that time, I will
second it.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Williams. Are there any other nominations for any
of these positions? All in favor of the nominations, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk:
C. Appointment of Legal Counsel for 2002
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I have now, I guess, become the senior citizen member of this
Commission and nobody probably has talked more or [inaudible] Mr. Shepard and Mr.
Wall and Mr. Mays. I would at this time -- we’ve undergone a lot of discussion in
reference to where we are going with our Attorney, with the law Department, with the
other staff changes that our current Attorney has made, but I feel we are at a crucial point
in this county in terms of litigation that we now face currently and at a cross-roads in
7
terms of where we are doing various forms of investment packages. We have the
potential to have to do some things, quite frankly, to turn this city around, and I’m going
I’m going to place in nomination the name of Mr.
to give him a new year’s present.
James Wall as Legal Counsel for this year.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Shepard: Move the nominations be closed.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that?
Mr. Colclough: I second it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, would you accept the appointment if offered?
Mr. Wall: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Just to make sure. Okay.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of Mr. Wall’s appointment for another year, please vote
aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Wall: And I do appreciate it.
Mr. Mayor: We appreciate it.
Mr. Mays: Reconsider [inaudible]
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, let’s move along to the consent agenda.
The Clerk: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. Our consent agenda consists of items 1 through
35. That’s items 1 through 35. For the benefit of any objectors to the alcohol petitions,
would you please signify your objection by raising your hand:
5. Motion to approve a request by David Troy Keane for an on premise consumption
Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Ciao Bella! Restaurant
located at 399 Highland Avenue. There will be a Dance Hall. There will be
Sunday sales. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee December 27, 2001)
8
6. Motion to approve a request by Sungchol Song for a retail package Liquor, Beer
& Wine license to be used in connection with Frank’s Package Shop located at
3251 Deans Bridge Road. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public
Services Committee December 27, 2001)
7. Motion to approve a request by Joe E. Jones for an on premise consumption
Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Jay’s 411 located at
1924 Barton Chapel Road. There will be a Dance Hall. District 3. Super District
10. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 27, 2001)
8. Motion to approve a request by Kishun Taylor for a retail package Beer & Wine
license to be used in connection with Lee’s Grocery located at 2062 Old
Savannah Road. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee December 27, 2001)
9. Motion to approve a request by Tok Sun Ha for an on premise consumption
Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Hwang Kuem Jung
Restaurant located at 3253-A Deans Bridge Road. There will be Sunday sales.
District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December
27, 2001)
10. Motion to approve a request by John C. Melton for an on premise consumption
Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with The Tavern On Broad
Restaurant & Lounge located at 724 Broad Street. There will be a Dance Hall.
There will be Sunday sales. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public
Services Committee December 27, 2001)
11. Motion to approve a request by Henry Todd Schafer for a Sunday sales license to
be used in connection with Bistro 491 located at 491-B Highland Avenue. District
1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 27, 2001)
The Clerk: Are there any objections to those alcohol petitions?
Mr. Mayor: None are noted, Madame Clerk.
Mr. Cheek: Move to approve the consent agenda.
Mr. Shepard: Second, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second to approve the consent agenda. Gentlemen,
would you like to pull any items?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to pull item 29 and 30 for some information,
please, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. 29 and 30 for Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Bridges: How about 18, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Number 18, Mr. Bridges?
9
Mr. Bridges: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: That was the one I needed to pull. Thank you, Mr. Bridges
Mr. Mayor: Any others?
PLANNING:
1. ZA-R-148 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition to amend Section 8 of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County
concerning the construction of ponds in single-family residential zones.
(Approved by Commission December 18, 2001 – second reading)
PUBLIC SERVICES:
2. Motion to approve of final payment to APAC-Georgia, Inc. for construction
in the amount of $128,900.93. (Approved by Public Services Committee
December 27, 2001)
3. Motion to approve in resolution form support of the Georgia Transit
Association’s FY 2002 Legislative Agenda. (Approved by Public Services
Committee December 27, 2001)
4. Motion to approve application for funding from the Georgia Greenspace
Wildlife Recreational Grant Program. (Approved by Public Services
Committee December 27, 2001)
5. Motion to approve a request by David Troy Keane for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Ciao
Bella! Restaurant located at 399 Highland Avenue. There will be a Dance
Hall. There will be Sunday sales. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by
Public Services Committee December 27, 2001)
6. Motion to approve a request by Sungchol Song for a retail package Liquor,
Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Frank’s Package Shop
located at 3251 Deans Bridge Road. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved
by Public Services Committee December 27, 2001)
7.Motion to approve a request by Joe E. Jones for an on premise consumption
Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Jay’s 411 located
at 1924 Barton Chapel Road. There will be a Dance Hall. District 3. Super
District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 27, 2001)
8. Motion to approve a request by Kishun Taylor for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Lee’s Grocery located at 2062 Old
Savannah Road. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee December 27, 2001)
9. Motion to approve a request by Tok Sun Ha for an on premise consumption
Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Hwang Kuem
Jung Restaurant located at 3253-A Deans Bridge Road. There will be Sunday
10
sales.District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee
December 27, 2001)
10. Motion to approve a request by John C. Melton for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with The
Tavern On Broad Restaurant & Lounge located at 724 Broad Street. There
will be a Dance Hall. There will be Sunday sales. District 1. Super District 9.
(Approved by Public Services Committee December 27, 2001)
11. Motion to approve a request by Henry Todd Schafer for a Sunday sales
license to be used in connection with Bistro 491 located at 491-B Highland
Avenue. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee December 27, 2001)
12. Motion to approve new construction code editions and Georgia amendments
effective January 1, 2002. (Approved by Commission December 18, 2001 –
second reading)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
13. Motion to approve the mid-range salary $48,677 effective January 5, 2002 for
Ms. Leslie Priessman, Finance Director Bush Field. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee December 27, 2001)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
14. Motion to approve Dynamic Imaging Systems, Inc. to provide the Photo
Imaging system for the Sheriff’s Office subject to the final contract approval
of the Attorney, Sheriff’s Office and Information Technology. (Approved by
Public Safety Committee December 27, 2001)
FINANCE:
15. Motion to approve a request from the Augusta Richmond County Civic
Center regarding the purchase of tickets at a cost of $20.00 for the Third
Annual African American Philharmonic Orchestra Concert. (Approved by
Finance Committee December 27, 2001)
16. Motion to approve request from the Tax Commissioner’s Office to abate
account charged in error in the amount of $141.05, Map 44-4, Parcel 79.
(Approved by Finance Committee December 27, 2001)
17. Motion to approve refund of 2000 taxes to Bell and Bell Associates in the
amount of $142.99 on business account #2005368. (Approved by Finance
Committee December 27, 2001)
18. Deleted from consent agenda.
19. Motion to approve the refund of 2000 taxes paid in error in the amount of
$138.60 to Governor’s Place Apartments, account #2035631. (Approved by
Finance Committee December 27, 2001)
20. Motion to approve the renewal lease of Two (2) 40 Ton Articulated Dump
Trucks for Public Works – Solid Waste Division for 36 months from Burch
Lowe Company of Augusta, Georgia for $65,316.00 each per year (lowest bid
offer on Bid 01-179). (Approved by Finance Committee December 27, 2001)
11
21. Motion to approve a request from Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc. for City
sponsorship/participation in the purchase of tickets for the Fifth Annual
Unity Breakfast. (Approved by Finance Committee December 27, 2001)
22. Motion to approve a request from the Paine College/United Negro College
Fund for City sponsorship in the purchase of individual tickets at a cost of
$50 per person for the Second Annual Masked Ball. (Approved by Finance
Committee December 27, 2001)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
23. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 122-1, Parcel
103, which is owned by Commercial & Military Systems Co. for a right-of-
way in connection with the Windsor Spring Road Improvement Project,
more particularly described as 0.02 acre, more or less, of right-of-way and
1,160.08 square feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 27, 2001)
24. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 83, Parcel 190,
which is owned by Trinity Manor, Inc., for a right-of-way in connection with
the Barton Chapel Road Improvement Project, more particularly described
as 388.33 square feet, more or less, of right-of-way and 5,011.46 square feet,
more or less, of temporary construction easement. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee December 27, 2001)
25. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 86-3, Parcel 130,
which is owned by Daniel J. McBurney and Doris Runette G. McBurney, for
a right-of-way in connection with the Bungalow Road Improvement Project,
more particularly described as 0.02 acre, more or less, of right-of-way and
1,154.95 square feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 27, 2001)
26. Motion to approve award for construction of the Rae’s Creek Temporary
Sewer Pump Station to Blair Construction, Inc. who submitted a low bid of
$105,955.20. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 27,
2001)
27. Motion to approve bid award for purchase of Total Organic Compound
Analyzer to the low bidder, Tekmar-Dohrmann, in the amount of $24,049.90.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 27, 2001)
28. Motion to approve Change Order #2 in the amount of $45,000 to ZEL
Engineers for additional engineering services during completion of the Mid-
City Sanitary Sewer Relief Project. (Funded by Acct #508043420/5212115)
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 27, 2001)
29. Deleted from consent agenda.
30. Deleted from consent agenda.
31. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 86-4, Parcel 6,
which is owned by Gordon E. Walters and D. Ramon Walters, as Trustees
under the Last Will and Testament of G. Ervin Walters and Gordon E.
Walters and D. Ramon Walters, individually, for right-of-way and
permanent drainage utility easement in connection with the Bungalow Road
12
Improvement Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
December 27, 2001)
32. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 86-3, Parcel 80,
which is owned by Wesley B. Cummings, for right-of-way in connection with
the Bungalow Road Improvement Project. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee December 27, 2001)
33. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 11, Parcel 125,
which is owned by Kristine L. Sasser and Theresa J. Reynerson, for an
easement in connection with the Warren Road Improvement Project, more
particularly described as 312.5 square feet, more or less, of right-of-way and
342.6 square feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 27, 2001)
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
34. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held December 18, 2001.
APPOINTMENT:
35. Motion to approve the Legislative appointment of Ms. Marcie Wilhelmi to
the Augusta Aviation Commission due to the resignation of Mr. Jim Wilson.
Mr. Mayor: Then we’ll call the question on the consent agenda, minus items
number 18, 29 and 30. All in favor, please vote aye.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, let it be known I vote No on Sunday sales.
Mr. Mayor: The record will so reflect that.
Mr. Bridges: And the same for me, Ms. Bonner.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: And the record will show that.
Mr. Colclough and Mr. Bridges vote No on Sunday sales portion. [Items 5, 9, 10]
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item number 18.
The Clerk:
18. Motion to approve refund of 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 taxes paid in error in
the amount of $1,232.08 to Walden Hall Christian Montessori School,
account #1270488. (Approved by Finance Committee December 27, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
13
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I didn’t catch this on the
Finance Committee. It wasn’t until studying it this weekend that I looked at this. Jim,
correct me if I’m wrong, in the past we’ve always corrected three years as required by
law, and this actually does four years. Am I right?
Mr. Wall: You are exactly right, and it should be limited to three years.
Mr. Bridges: Based on our past practice?
Mr. Wall: Well, not only based on past practice, but in my opinion to do a fourth
is actually a gratuity. And I don’t think you can refund more than three years legally.
Mr. Bridges: Given that, Mr. Mayor, I make the motion that we approve the
refund for ’98, ’99, and 2000.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. What about the taxes for 2001? Are
they going to come back in and ask for those?
Mr. Wall: Well, they may have applied for an exemption in 2001 or they may
come back. I don’t know.
Mr. Reece: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, Mr. Reece, appreciate that. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, just on a point of clarification, I understand where the
three years is always done, and I stand to be corrected, I’m just searching for a little
information. Have we not, though, when it has been say an error or as such on our side,
and I know the Tax Assessor’s office cannot make the decision, they have to send it to us.
But haven’t we made decisions to deal with those where they have gone past the three-
year period and we’ve been the appealing body, that has been before us?
Mr. Wall: No, sir. To my knowledge, no, sir. I will say that -- prior to my
tenure, it was done, and that was one of the thing I addressed [inaudible]. It was done at
one point, I’m told. In fact I think [inaudible] in my opinion [inaudible].
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, that was what I was mainly looking for. He’s the
Attorney of record and I’m going to have to go by the one that we got, not necessarily the
one that we had. But I just wanted to make sure to a point that the records would show
that this has been done before, and if the Court decision supports where we are going I
don’t have a problem with that. But when we say we hadn’t done it, I just wanted to
make sure, you know, cause there are some old relics here, Jim, that go past your tenure.
14
Mr. Wall: Right.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much, Mr. Mays. Anything further? All in favor of
the motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk: Mr. Williams, can we take both of these items together?
Mr. Williams: Yes, ma’am. I have no problem, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
29. Motion to authorize Public Works and Engineering to award the contract to
the low bidder, Mabus Brothers, in the amount of $1,157,552.20 subject to
the receipt of signed contracts and proper bonds on the Stevens Creek Road
Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 27, 2001)
30. Motion to authorize Public Works and Engineering to award the contract to
the low bidder, Mabus Brothers, in the amount of $93,056.25 subject to the
receipt of signed contracts and proper bonds on the adjusting Roadway
Structures, Phase VI Project. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee December 27, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I needed some clarification on this.
When I saw this amount on this low bid for $1 million, and I’m looking at familiar firm
who has done work for this Richmond County government for some years, I can imagine,
and I’m a little confused, I guess is a good word, on how the low bid come in like this
and how many change orders we had. Can somebody tell me what project this is and
what we doing. We approved a project last week that I thought was going happen and it
already happened. Has this something we already done that we are paying for now?
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Smith, can you respond to that?
Ms. Smith: Actually -- the question is has the work on this project already
started; the answer is no. This is a new project. It’s a new contract that will be awarded
if this body votes to award this contract to Mabus Brothers to do roadway improvement
work on Stevens Creek Road from Washington Road to Claussen.
Mr. Williams: And that goes with the second one, with 30 as well?
Ms. Smith: The second one is also a new contract that we are looking to award.
This one is to adjust manholes, water valves and both storm and sewer in the roadway as
a result of our paving project that the Georgia Department of Transportation does, in
15
conjunction with the [inaudible] Program, as well as the streets that are paved by county
forces, using the asphalt plant.
Mr. Williams: I’ve got still a little hesitant in my mind about this because of what
we been doing in the past. I’m going to vote for this item, Mr. Mayor, but I would like a
request, if I can, for our Finance Department. Mr. Shepard, we know what we dealing
with now with our budget. We are spending money and we are talking about being
accountable, but if I can at this time, Mr. Mayor, I’m going to vote for the project but I’d
like to get a report back as to those entities, those services that are being performed by the
different organizations, the different companies, and not the project themselves. I want a
dollar amount, if I can, from the Finance Department for our Finance meeting, to let us
know what we spent last year with each one of these organizations. We are spending a
lot, a lot of money, and I’d like to know about participation as far as putting it back into
the community, how are things going, so on those different organizations, those different
companies, not the plan, not necessarily the work that’s been done, but I’d like to have a
dollar figure on each one, for our finance meeting, for our next meeting if I can.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Smith, can you prepare such a report for Mr. Williams?
Ms. Smith: For clarification, you’re looking to find out how much contract work
has been awarded to each company that is doing where we’ve awarded contracts?
Mr. Williams: With Augusta Richmond County. Yes, ma’am. Not actually job.
I don’t want to go through a lot of paperwork that we had a misunderstanding before
about. I’m talking about dollar amounts, figures, as to what company and how much
money we spent in the year 2001. We don’t have to go back to 2000. I mean 1999.
Ms. Smith: 2001, and that’s construction contracts?
Mr. Williams: Construction contracts. I need to look at that. I need to know that,
please.
Ms. Smith: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Just for clarification purposes, do you want the Utilities contracts, too?
Do you want all contracts?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, the Utilities contracts as well, if we can get those, just the
dollar amounts, Mr. Kolb. We got a lot of low bids come in and we do change orders,
and we need to look at what we been doing and we talking about accountability, we
talking about another year coming, we talking about money’s tight. We need to know
what we’re doing and what we’re spending money and what those companies are putting
back into our city, because I think we spend a lot of money and we have not had the
participation that putting something back in. So all those things ought to come into play.
16
Mr. Kolb: I’m not sure we can give you that Thursday that you want.
Mr. Williams: I understand.
Mr. Kolb: But certainly we can give you the contractors and the dollar amounts
spent year to date. Well, the dollar amounts of the contracts plus the change orders.
Mr. Williams: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I ask this question of Mr. Williams. You said bring it
to Finance but Utilities and Public Works ordinarily have their oversight done by
Engineering Services.
Mr. Williams: Well, I’m thinking about Finance, Mr. Shepard, cause that’s where
you and I have served on and I been following your leadership on that and I think finance
ought to come under Finance, whether it be under Engineering Services or not. We still
ought to be able to look at the dollar amounts. I’m interested in it myself, so if you feel
like we don’t need to bring it to --
Mr. Shepard: If I could, Mr. Mayor, respond to Mr. Williams. You know, the
Finance Committee works with the General fund budget more than it works with the
budget, so these two departments that are affected -- if you want to have it before the
Finance Committee, you can have it before the Finance Committee, but it just seems to
me that because of the nature of those funds, Utilities funds are generated from the bond
issue and the charges for services for water and sewer and what-not, and traditionally --
correct me if I’m wrong, Ms. Smith -- being brought back before Engineering Services, I
thought. The Administrator is nodding his head. I mean however you want to do it.
We’ll hear it at Finance Committee, I just wanted you to understand that I didn’t think we
had precedent to hear it. I’ll be happy to have it on the agenda if you want it there.
Mr. Williams: Just for clarification, Mr. Shepard. I’m not trying to change the
situation or change the format. What I’m trying to do, I want to see for myself, I want to
get a handle on what we talking about. We talking about Public Works monies and other
monies, we look at this city as a whole, and I like to look at what we spent out, whether it
came from federal, whether it came from state, whether it came from local. I like to look
at what we spent in the year 2001 on these services and I’d like to see that number. Not
that Finance got to make any move on that or make any attempt to do anything. But I
like to have that information for myself.
Mr. Mayor: All right. And the Administrator has indicated he will get you that
information.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
17
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Ms. Smith: If I can add, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
Ms. Smith: Both the Utilities Department as well as Public Works also do a
report on change orders to take a look at trends, and I just spoke with Doug Cheek with
the Utilities Department and can speak for the Public Works Department that I know
they’ve done a report recently, as far as change orders are concerned, and Public Works
is in the process of doing one that will be available in February. That’s going to go all
the way through the end of 2001. However, the other information that you’re requesting
in regards to the amount of dollars that are awarded on the contracts for the individual
firms, we can have ready for you as requested.
Mr. Williams: Okay. That’s the name of those firms and the dollar amount.
That’s all I need.
Ms. Smith: Okay.
Mr. Williams: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will entertain a motion to approve items 29 and 30.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
Mr. Boyles: This is in the form of a request because I am new. I’d like for Ms.
th
Smith to, because Stevens Creek Road is in the 7 District, I would like to -- and it’s
through no one’s fault -- to see a copy of the project so that I could pass that on to the
neighborhood associations that I will meet with, Ms. Smith, if you could do that at your
convenience. No rush on my part.
Mr. Mayor: Be glad to do that for you.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion to approve these two items?
Mr. Cheek: I so move.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any other discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
18
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: That concludes our consent agenda, the regular agenda now.
The Clerk:
APPOINTMENT:
36. Consider appointment of physician member to the Richmond County
Hospital Authority for a four-year term.
??
Vendie H. Hooks, III, M.D. 2240 Cumming Road, Augusta,
Georgia 30904 (I)
??
Stanley T. Smith, Jr., M.D., 63 Conifer Circle, Augusta, Georgia
30909
??
Gregory L. Gay, M.D., 1316 Comfort Road, Augusta, Georgia
30909
The Clerk: These are recommendations from the Authority.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a nomination?
Mr. Shepard: I nominate Dr. Hooks to continue his service there.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Dr. Hooks is nominated and seconded. Any other nominations? All
in favor of Dr. Hooks, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk:
37. Consider appointment of At-Large member to the Richmond County
Hospital Authority for a four-year term: Quincy L. Robertson, 3219 Tate
Road, Augusta, Georgia 30906; William J. Badger, 2642 Henry Street,
Augusta, Georgia 30904; Hugh Hamilton, 3 Eagleton Court, Augusta, 30909
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, is there a motion?
Mr. Williams: I nominate Mr. Quincy Robertson.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Quincy Robertson? Are there any other nominations? All in favor
of Mr. Robertson, please vote aye.
19
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk:
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
38. Discuss 2002 Budget. (Requested by Commissioner Mays and Williams)
39. Discuss Reduction-In-Force Plan (RIF). (Requested by Commissioner Mays)
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, we’ll also at this time include in this discussion item
number 42
The Clerk: Item 42:
42. Adopt 2002 Budget Resolution.
Mr. Mayor: Which is the budget resolution. Mr. Wall has provided each of you
with a copy of the budget resolution, and in fact this budget resolution was adopted by
the Commission on December 27 of 2001, so there’s really no need for action today other
than just approving it for form if you’d like to do that. Mr. Mays, we’ll defer to you on
the budget.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I guess first maybe I need to ask Mr. Wall a question
before making some comments. Even though the budget was adopted at your last
meeting in December and the resolution is a formality, at this particular time, what are
the legalities surrounding any possible -- and I realize that comes to a vote -- but what are
the legalities surrounding any possibilities in budget changes that were adopted, and how
does that play into the resolution that you already have?
Mr. Wall: Well, the resolution is to simply implement, document the action that
was taken last week approving the budgets. Throughout this year, you can adopt budget
amendments at such time as the Commission chooses to do so, and then those would be
changes in the budget that are made throughout the year. I hope that answers your
question.
Mr. Mays: It answers my question basically when the confines of the dollar
amount that you provided, I believe along with a set particular millage in the particular
millage areas that is so described; am I correct?
Mr. Wall: Well, the budget resolution does not establish a millage. The millage
rates that were discussed as a part of the budget were the anticipated millage increases
that would be necessary to raise enough revenue to balance the budget. And the actual
setting of the millage rate will come after the digest has been approved, which would be
sometime typically in the August time frame. August, early September time frame.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I guess before making a comment, then I guess my 38 and
39 are kind of intertwined. Let me say this first. One, I want to thank my colleagues for
20
making a very prudent and hard group of decisions when they voted on the budget last
week. And I’m not here today to start World War III or anything of that nature because
obviously we realize that money is going to be tight. But I have a concern, I guess first
and foremost, is that one, in terms of where we are adopting or what the potential
adoption has been, that one, we don’t render this city totally dysfunctional. That’s my
first concern. I think that in the numbers that we’ve put together, while I think heartfelt
and painful decisions went into what’s done, I don’t think there was any political trickery
in there. You had across-the-board-districts of people who voted. But I think in terms as
we constantly get feedback and feedback you will, and I think you’re getting a mixed
reaction because maybe there are people on one perspective who say you’ve done too
much already, you shouldn’t do anything. There are some who are saying what’s going
to become, particularly with the services that we receive in our city? And I think those
are legitimate questions. That kind of gets us to a point that when you make those
decisions and we have to move along very quickly -- I understand what Jim said about us
adopting changes throughout the year -- but realistically, do we want to be back here
every 60 days or every quarter dealing with adoptions, or are we going to maybe look at a
cooling-off period, quite frankly, and see where the proposed, at least, changes where
they are, take us or where they don’t take us. Now you mentioned, Jim -- I realize that
the millage adoption does not take place technically until the fall. And correct me
wherever -- I’m searching now for information. I’m not beating up on anybody. I’m just
looking for information and trying to get us possibly to a different situation today. You
mentioned the millage. Now in the millage that will be adopted in the fall, changing it up
or down, but you mentioned the potential to raise the amount of revenue. So if that’s the
case and we are voting there in the fall, hypothetically speaking, let’s just say in Public
Safety where I think there is no disagreement that we have to deal with increasing that
area. I supported it last year, going to support it this year, not looking for dealing with
the reductions in it. But let’s say, for instance, hypothetically, that we are going to look
at Fire Protection. And I understand that you’ve got a difference in this particular budget
that was passed, and I just start in there. If you’re going to deal with looking at Fire as
Public Safety, and I don’t think you can get any deeper than when you are looking across
America in terms of if we going to be serious about safety, then we got to look at what
we provide to our Sheriff, and I’m for staying there. But I think we’ve also got to look at
whether it deals with the Marshal’s office for security, we got to look at our level of fire
protection. If nothing else in a common sense attitude the general public has asked us to
build fire stations. We have the equipment that we put in, but yet if we’re going to get
into a situation, quite frankly, that renders us from a staffing point that puts us in a
potential of danger, then I think that question is better answered sooner than later. So I’m
searching now to see if the millage where you are to potentially raise money locks us in
or is, quite frankly, are we just in an open season situation that where if we need to
expand that, to make sure that fire protection is covered, then are we legally able to do
that in the form of a motion if it passes and be able to restore that to that particular
budget?
Mr. Wall: Yes, you are. I mean you could restore the service, increase the budget
by whatever amount is needed for fire protection, and if there are not other sources of
revenue, then it would necessitate a different millage rate. But you’re not precluded from
21
increasing the level of service or adjusting the level of service within the -- beyond the
budget that was adopted, and do that through a budget amendment.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, the Finance Chairman has asked to be able to respond to
your question on that.
Mr. Mays: Not a problem with that, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mays, Ms. Bonner circulated a memorandum to us indicating
what state agencies we might want to meet with when we got to Atlanta for GMA and
ACCG conferences. One thing that came to our attention, Donna Williams, in the
budget, and George, was that our insurance premium tax was substantially lower than we
anticipated this year. That’s not a tax we raise. It’s a tax we are the beneficiary of, which
is levied by the state of Georgia. And where there is some real concern that that formula
has shortchanged Augusta Richmond County, so I think we need to confer when we have
the opportunity to confer as a body in Atlanta with the state departments as we do that
number one, should be the Revenue Department, because if there is a problem with the
formula, if we, i.e., have been shortchanged, then that could be addressed prior to us
setting the millage. So I would hope we could go up there and inquire whether or not
additional insurance premium tax may be available to us. It may not. But that would be
other revenue that Mr. Wall alluded to, that if we were able to receive it, that would take
some pressure off the fire service district millage. So I think there would be an
opportunity there for all of us to make a serious effort to see that we’re not being
underfunded by the state premium tax.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I have no problem with that at all and fully support it. I
think we had even discussed that in our Legislative package to present to our members of
the General Assembly. But I believe in being covered in every way that you can. That’s
good. But I think that also leaves us in a situation, particularly that we’re depending
upon what our Legislators present, and we have the hardest-working Delegation there in
Capitol Dome show business, but it doesn’t mean they’re going to get it through the
General Assembly this session, and it’s going to interact into the budget that we do for
next year. What I’m looking for is the fact that if we’re protected both ways, then if
that’s changed, then that’s all well and good. If the millage rate is not going to be
decided in terms of voting on it until the fall of the year, then we can always back down,
just like we go up. But I don’t think it’s fair in the momentum and the message that we
send out, that if we are going to wait on another governmental body to deal with one
aspect of public service, when we know that we are going in already on the short end of a
situation, dealing with our own fire department. I think that that should be covered, I
think it should be covered immediately. I have no problem with us going back on it.
And as I said earlier, I’m not looking for a fight in here, but I’m looking for the fact that
if you reduce this -- and when I left on a [inaudible] situation the two [inaudible] that I
left, those $500,000 in cuts in Fire Department, quite frankly, were not on the table. I
understand now that they’re into that equation, and I think that that situation ought to be
22
solved, at least from the standpoint of being protected on this end. If the General
Assembly gets us help so that we can deal with a different reduction on the Public Safety
side of the millage, then that’s all well and good. But I think it ought to be corrected and
we ought to do it today. Now and with that, on that particular side of it, Mr. Mayor, I’ve
not even gotten to number 39. But I’m going to make a motion that we adjust the Public
Safety side of that millage to deal with the increase in the Fire Department that is so
needed that has been cut and that if those other revenues, if the Administrator can find a
way to get them back some other means, fine. If it can be gotten out of the Fire tax
premium being changed, fine. But I would like for that to go forward and be included in
the package that we send in the proposed millage rate right now that we have with all
other aspects of Public Safety.
Mr. Colclough: I second that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, can you, can you give us a figure or a number that we can
include in the motion?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to give y’all the figure that I inherited when I
got back, whatever you took out is what I need you put back in. I’m not being cocky
when I say that, but I think your folk have got the numbers that it takes to bring you up to
[inaudible]. I believe it’s somewhere in the neighborhood of half a million dollars that’s
in there that wasn’t on the table before. That’s been sliced, and it needs to be put back in.
If it’s $500,000, if it’s $499,000, whatever the number is, deal with the millage out of
Public Safety. That’s my motion, to bring the level of cuts back so that the staffing is
there, that we don’t buy new fire trucks that run around this city, build four to five new
fire stations, and we got fire trucks that may run around like a cab, where you got a
driver, and you got to wait on another truck to get there. And with the added
responsibility of them doing the first responder to ambulance service and [inaudible],
they’re being called upon to do more things. And there’s no need of us playing games
with this.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, can you shed some light on a potential number we need so
the Commissioners know what they’re voting on?
Mr. Wall: That is $500,000.
Mr. Mayor: $500,000? Okay. That motion was seconded. Discussion on the
motion? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just on the budget in general.
Mr. Mayor: Well, let’s do this. Let’s deal with Mr. Mays’ motion and then we’ll
continue our discussion on the budget. Let’s do that. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I’m going to agree with the Mayor Pro Tem on this and if there is any
legal way that we can do that motion, do that. I think it needs to be done at this time,
23
simply because it was a last-minute thing that the $500,000 was put on the table at the
budget hearing. We had not full discussed that, as we had fully discussed the other two
cuts from Public Works and from Recreation. And I really thought at that time that the
Fire Department needed to have input into that and let the Commissioners know what
effect that would have on future events. And I think that he has a good point at this point.
If that can be done at this particular time, I think we ought to find a way to do it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I understand the concern
about the cuts in the Fire Department, and believe me, I’m not arguing against a millage
increase to support that. But I want to assure you that that $500,000 in cuts was not taken
lightly. I believe that the Fire Department can manage and not impact on fire safety in
this community at all. First of all, the fire stations are probably a year away from the first
one being built, so we don’t even have to consider that really in this year’s budget.
Second, their proposed manpower reduction was greater in 2001 than is projected in
2002. So I feel very comfortable that the Fire Department can manage with the $500,000
in cuts.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
Mr. Mays: If I could respond very briefly to what I said and I’ll be very quick
with it. My only response is that one, in those reductions that have been done, the Fire
Department basically held on in trying to make those arrangements in terms of bringing
on additional personnel, waiting for this year’s budget to happen. Now I started off
saying that I’m not for dealing with any reduction in other level of public safety, where
we’ve covered with the minutes. I still stand by that, Sheriff, that’s not going backwards
at all. But to a point of analogy and making it, if the Administrator is going to make that
type of analogy, we could very well say that the new people that we are going to add on
for the potential for jail space and that you’ve not built him a jail pod yet and it’s not on,
but you have to have training periods to come, you have to be ready to do those things,
and you have to have those people in place. The same thing that occurs in terms of what
could affect greatly if you’ve got an ISO rating that takes place at this time, while you
have a fire force that’s down. We know where it has to come from. At least you’re
covered and you’re ready. If we don’t have to deal with the millage, and I don’t see
where the game is in this thing. I know where it is. I’m not going to even get into that
today. But the point is it was not there on the table. It came in at the last minute. And if
we are going to walk the walk about public safety, then let’s be honest about it. It was
not out there in front and I totally disagree with that analogy of putting it of where you
going to have the stations [inaudible]. You going to have, even when you build new
stations, the city has still got to be covered. Folk are not going to be any less because you
hadn’t built new stations. You are going to be covered by the old ones that are out there,
24
so you still have got to have the personnel in order to cover. You still are going to have
the same number of fire trucks, and you’re going to have an increase in the number of
first responder calls that you get. So to me that analogy does not hold water. I will not
back up off my motion. I want to see the millage rate dealt with the, totally inside the
[inaudible], I will not back off.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes Mr. Kolb.
Mr. Kolb: With all due respect to Commissioner Mays, the Sheriff’s Department
situation and the Fire Department situation are very much different. The additional
jailers that were authorized in the Sheriff’s Department were to deal with existing
crowding or existing capacity in the current jail. It was not projected that they would be
utilized in a new jail facility. The fire stations are not yet on line. We’re still planning
those. We have not broken ground on them. So the situations are entirely different. And
again, I reiterate that the current recommended budget or the budget that you approve for
the Fire Department will not in any way jeopardize the public safety of this community
with respect to fire services.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I don’t know about my colleagues, but the people that
have called me since we adopted the budget are kind of sick of talking about it going up
on taxes, and I couldn’t vote for additional millage to save my life. I think that there are
ways that we could probably take care of the Fire Department. I think we’ve got some
departments in county government that don’t function. I think they ought to be
disbanded, and we can take that money and put it towards public safety. One of the
departments I’m talking about is Human Relations. We don’t need it any more. It
doesn’t have a use. And that’s a quarter of a million dollars that could be shifted over to
the Fire Department. So I couldn’t vote for increasing the millage rate beyond what
we’ve already done. There is one way that we could look at this thing -- you’re talking
about being hard-nosed -- but we could take care of everybody that was going to have to
be dismissed, we could take care of the Fire Department and a couple of other things, and
that would take the cooperation of the people that work for this government, and that
would be for the Administrator to meet with every department head, to go back to see if
the employees of this government want to save some jobs that are going to be lost, and
whether or not they would forgo the pay increase from January 1 of this year until
September of this year. That would produce about $1.5 million and we could take care of
everything. That’s painful, but that’s another way to take care of the situation that Mayor
Pro Tem Mays is talking about. So I just wanted to throw out those comments.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a motion on the floor that would restore
$500,000 to the fire service budget. Is there any further discussion on that?
Mr. Bridges: Another question.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Bridges?
25
Mr. Bridges: My understanding is the motion directs the $500,000 be restored
through a millage increase?
Mr. Mayor: That was the motion. Yes, Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, would the millage increase -- I don’t know if anybody
has calculated it -- but would it be subject to calculation by seeing what the cap -- no, not
the cap, but the -- if a mill in Fire is $2.7 million, then this would be about .18 of a mill,
something like that, Donna?
Mr. Kolb: That is correct. That is correct.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion from the previous Mayor Pro Tem, please
vote aye.
Mr. Bridges, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Shepard vote No.
Motion carries 7-3.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, we will get to item number 39 in a moment. If we can
stick with item 38, and Commissioner Williams had also asked for some discussion on
the budget on the agenda. So Commissioner Williams, I will recognize you.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Like Mr. Mays, I’m really concerned with
the Fire Department and what happens with that. But as you know, I did not vote for the
budget because I did not agree with what was done and really how it was done. But I’ve
gotten a lot of calls and I’ve been really concerned as to what we did decide on with the
Public Works, making cuts in that department, which is going to impact south Augusta
and the inner city more than anything else. Not only that, the cut with Recreation. And I
understand those are our two biggest departments. But people are losing their jobs and I
said I would not vote for anybody to lose their jobs. We’ve got some people that ought to
not be in this government because they are not performing, and we got some people I still
believe that are performing well and not being paid. But I’m really concerned as to what
we decide to do, and that’s why I voted against this budget in the beginning. You’re
talking about cutting out in Public Works. And the thing we’re talking about cutting out
is the cleaning out of the ditches and cutting the vacant lots and abandoned houses. 95%
of that stuff is in my district. I’ve got a real bad area over in south Augusta when you
look at Wilkinson Garden area, there’s a plot of land there, probably about two acres in
size, that someone walked away from. It’s grown up, it’s overgrown, Public Works went
in the beginning of 2001 and cut about maybe six feet around it. But it’s infected with
rodents. People in that area have to go to the Board of Health in order to get some kind
of pellets to help alleviated that situation. That’s going to become not only with rats and
lizards and snakes, but those people are going to really suffer. The ditches in that area
that have not been cleaned. I think up in Apple Valley, we had a big situation with Apple
Valley, with no ditches cleaned in Apple Valley then the water can’t flow. They don’t
have drainage in that area. Now we’re not getting the drainage, but we’re not going to
26
service them, we going to cut back in those areas. And I’m totally against that. No one
wants to talk about raising taxes, but we going have to raise some taxes in order to get
some money. I don’t know another way around it. We going to have to talk about it.
We have not done anything in this city in ten years. It is time for us to make some
changes. But I can’t sit here and support the raising of the mills to do what we need to do
in one area but you let people suffer in another area. I mean you talking about Law
Enforcement and Fire Department. Those things are important. But what about the
safety of the children? What about safety of our neighborhoods? When that stuff
spreads, it don’t stop in one area. Just because it’s in south Augusta now or the inner city
not, don’t you think it’s not going to west Augusta and east Augusta and every part of
this city. So we can’t cut out hands off and act like there is nothing there. There is a
serious, serious problem and we talking about making the cuts that we’re planning to
make. And it was easy to do what we did, or what y’all did. I’m going to say that
because I didn’t vote for it. It’s easy to sit there and do that. But to look at what we need
to do and make those hard decisions, we need to make those hard decisions, as long as we
know it is being fair. I think we as a Commission need to be accountable for what we do.
Accountable meaning that when the funds come in, we ought to make sure that those
funds go for the purpose they was intended to. That’s our responsibility. But I can’t sit
here and let the general public just sit back and think everything is fine and we cut our
budget and we going to be able to make it. Now the Administrator, our Public Works
Director or somebody can tell me how we can alleviate that problem or how we going
solve that problem, I really like to hear an answer because we cannot sit back. Hyde Park
is an area right now, folks got a car and a boat. Most folks got two cars. These people
got a boat in case it rains cause they got to get out of there some kind of way. And I’m
not going to sit there and let the ditches run over and flood those people again while we
sit back and act like everything is fine. Everybody don’t have a nice home. Everybody
don’t sit in the dining room or living room and watch the fire place. Some folks still got
wood stoves out there. We got to think about everybody in this city. We talking about
unified, we talking about being together. If we’re in a mess, all of us are in a mess. And
if we going to be successful, all of us ought to be successful. So let us kind of look at
this. And I hope our Administrator got some other plan or some other way that we can
come up with something to do rather than make those cuts in Public Works and in the
Recreation Department where we’re talking about Recreation. We talking about closing
down some centers. All those centers we’re talking about closing down is hitting one
area. If we talking about being fair, it ought to hit everybody.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Williams: If you go to west Augusta, and I’m not picking on west Augusta.
But Eisenhower Park, if you go to Eisenhower Park at one o’clock in the morning, there
are lights as bright as daylight. But you can’t even find a flashlight going in south
Augusta. And something wrong with that picture. And I think we ought to be able to be
reasonable and look at it and see what’s going on. How can we cut those services? The
Sheriff is going to need more men because if these kids don’t have anywhere to go, they
going to jail.
27
(A round of applause is given).
Mr. Williams: And then we say well, we ain’t got nowhere to put them. We can
find money for officers but we can’t find money for Recreation and do those things. We
need to understand this is time for everybody to come to the table and we don’t have to
when the food is being served, we ought to come before the food is being served. So let
us look at it. Mr. Administrator, if you’ve got something else that you can come up with
today, I mean I can’t support it, I didn’t vote for it, and I still don’t think that we did it
right. We need to raise taxes, and we don’t need to raise taxes just to be raising them. If
we have to put a moratorium on what we can raise them for a certain amount of time and
then go back to the general public. And I think if people can see that money working for
them, they wouldn’t mind paying. If you getting something for your money, you don’t
mind paying your money, but I’m tired of paying money and don’t see where that
money’s going. And that’s what we need to do. We need to hold on to what is right.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I, too, wanted to comment on this budget.
I’ve physically gone home sick on my stomach a couple of days having both dealt with
the budget itself and the ramifications of it, and then the outcome. I’m very convinced
that this city and we as leaders are not being good stewards of the public’s trust. Again
we walk away from a $7+ million facility in Riverwalk without a maintenance plan or a
budget. I assure you, gentlemen, that it will cost more to repair it later than it does now.
We are not being good stewards of the resources the people have entrusted us with. And
just like repeating the same stupidity that we did in the past with our water system of
bleeding it and bleeding it and bleeding it, band-aid, patching it, until it collapsed,
Riverwalk is on the way. Hello. Also, we’re going into Reserves $1.6 million. We’re
going into Contingency $.4 million. That will put us at the end, if I understand things
correctly, of the amount we can withdraw from Reserves because our 60-day on the
amount of revenue we need to have on hand to function this government will be at that
limit. And so we have $2 million we have to make up for next year. Has anybody on this
board stood up the people and said yeah, this is a tax increase, but since we didn’t handle
it this year entirely, we’re going to have to come back to you again next year? And that’s
the facts. Too, when all the cities across this country are offering incentives to come stay
in our hotels, come visit our cities, what does Augusta do? We’ll do away with
promoting two of the bigger sporting events that this city has, the Georgia Games -- let’s
defund it to a point to make it pretty much impotent. We’ll do the same thing with the
national boxing tournament. And instead of attracting people to Augusta, we’re holding
up a sign at the county line that says go to Macon, Augusta decided not to promote itself
in the future. We don’t want to offset the impact to our local option sales tax by bringing
tourists and people into these venues. We want you to go to Macon and Columbus and
Savannah, who are smiling right now. I don’t care how many dollars, pennies, percents
of pennies we raise on our hotel-motel tax, if people aren’t in the rooms we won’t collect
a dime. The thing that we have to do now is become more competitive instead of less
competitive. When we backed away from funding these two particular items, that sends a
very terrible message. Augusta has run up the white flag. All we can do is continue to
28
pull our tents in, not promote this great city. Again, as Commissioner Williams said, the
more parks we close and the less things that we have positive to do for our kids, the more
pods we’re going to need to build. It’s cheaper to run a Rec center than it is a jail pod.
(A round of applause was given.)
Mr. Cheek: I’m hoping for some constancy of thinking here from this board. We
all talk about promoting the city. Economic growth has been a main thing in the
headlines here lately. Instead of growing our economy, which we will not be able to do,
even if we had a new industry sign up today to replace that $2 million, if not more, the
only short-term thing we can do, ladies and gentlemen, members of the board, Lord God
Almighty, help us, is promote this city. Bring people here to eat in our restaurants, to
stay in our hotels, and shop in our shops. They’re not coming to Augusta because it’s on
the major roads to the beach or anywhere else. We’re kind of out on our on. So without
the promotion of the CVB and these many events, August is an island unto itself. If
we’re going to grow this economy, we need to grow it, we need to be resolved in the fact
that it costs a little bit of money, a little bit of investment to grow the money. Ladies and
gentlemen, I’m going to remind you of this and then I’ll shut up and fade slowly into this
budget nightmare, is Augusta is a great city. If we don’t promote our city, there is a
major metropolitan area that was bigger than Augusta less than 100 yards across that
river named Hamburg. They failed to adapt to the changing needs that they were faced
with. The made their best cost efforts and rolled in the sidewalks and sat in their own
second-biggest city in South Carolina as it was probably at the time, just like we do --
we’re the greatest second city in the state of Georgia. Ladies and gentleman, there’s a
whole cast of people anxious to pass this city. As a taxpayer, and I’ve talked to many,
many citizens about this, tax increases are bad. I’m against them 110%, but what I’m
hearing from everybody that I’ve talked to is don’t half solve the problem, solve the
problem. We have solved it with a lot of the measures in this budget. We have not
addressed them, and it would be easy to say well, everybody has needs and wants. Well,
if you look at the successful cities that grow their tax base based on their tourism, they’re
promoting their cities, not backing away from it. When things get tough like we’re
facing here, these same cities will go out and promote more, not less. They will go out
and attract more people to come into their cities, not less. Because the one cent sales tax,
without it -- and I don’t know how many of your are aware of this -- without it we don’t
have a capital improvement program. Nothing. The more money that gets taken away
from our sales tax means less bridges, parks, fire stations and everything else. The only
way that we have to offset this in a timely manner is by increasing our tourism dollars,
which means promoting this city. We will not replace it any other way. The course of
action that we are on now has us in a state of diminishing returns, which means less
money to fund the government and do everything else next year. Just like the citizens
have said to me, and I hope that we will reconsider it, solve the problems, don’t half solve
them. If we are going to have a tax increase, let’s have one, not three years in a row. The
other thing is after we do this, however we sort it out, is it can’t be a one-man PR team
for this city. It can’t be the Mayor or me. All of us need to get out and let the people of
this community know that this city is doing a good job with the dollars it is given. There
is an information void out there and it’s because we don’t step up to the plate there, too. I
29
just hope that we’ll reconsider this, and Mr. Mayor, I’m going to make a motion that we
restore the amount of money to the Riverwalk maintenance budget, to the Georgia Games
and the efforts to attract the Silver Gloves Police National Boxing Tournament.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, can you give us those figures so that we could put those in
the motion? Or do you have them, Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: No, sir.
Mr. Kolb: The Georgia Games are already back in. The Riverwalk maintenance
would be about $150,000. The boxing, $25,000 for boxing. So that’s a total of
$175,000.
Mr. Mayor: And the source of that would be?
Mr. Kolb: At the present time, I don’t know where else I can cut. So it would
have to be on the millage.
Mr. Mayor: What would the mill be to offset that?
Mr. Kolb: The equivalent would be probably less than -- I believe it’s about .04
mills. .04 mills.
Mr. Mayor: .04 mills?
Mr. Kolb: Right.
Mr. Mayor: And that would be for the General fund?
Mr. Kolb: Right.
Mr. Mayor: Has everybody got those figures?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Just a second, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Pastor Hankerson wanted to speak first and then we’ll get to you.
Mr. Mays: I yield.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have some great concerns also about
the budget cuts. I had an opportunity to speak --
30
Mr. Mayor: Let me interrupt you one second. Is this with respect to the motion
made by Mr. Cheek? Let’s dispose of his motion before we get into other areas.
Mr. Mays: Well, Mr. Mayor. This is in terms of Mr. Cheek’s motion. And it’s
just -- if I might address Andy directly for just a second. Andy, and I’m prepared to
support what you’ve got on there. The reason why I yielded before, in placing item 39
was to deal with exactly what you’re talking about. What my proposal was going to be in
39, if we can possibly put that one on the floor, is that what you’ve got is good and it
needs to be done. There are others that are going to have to be done and we are going to
have to look at them. Where I’m going with it, Mr. Mayor, even though we’re not on 39,
and I’m not hung up on numbers, I can make it under 38, is that what I would like to see
us do, and this is part of what you and I had discussed this morning, is that everybody has
some ideas around the table and this clearly gets to where Andy is going with this, is that
if we can take what unofficially I think could be called a cooling off period, if we can put,
number one, a 30-day moratorium on any of those layoffs that we’ve got on the docket to
be dealt with. Period. Take the 30 days. It will do several days. One, it will allow the
department heads to work though what they are already working through. Some of them
in the painfulness of this, for instance Public Works is an example. 17 of those 21
proposals that were out there have possibly been solved. I think if we will work through
any and if the Administrator will use the people he has that know how to make this thing
work, and they can work together, we can get something done. I’m looking across this
table while the camera is going out to every citizen that tunes in on it. That will not be a
way -- if a good accounting firm is looking at Donna Williams, they are going to hire her.
I hope they turn the camera off, Donna, because the point is we can’t solve budget
adjustments, turn it around, making a decision we think this is what needs to be done on
this issue, we think this is what’s going to be done. We have radically gone in and done a
dissection, quite frankly, and I know the Administrator is looking at me like that, but he
doesn’t have to like it. The point is, we’ll have to set the policy, gentlemen. When this
city is full of Johnson grass -- if you don’t know what that is, live inside the inner city --
when it gets seven to ten feet high and we want to clean some spots comes Masters
season and the rest of it will go up like it’s a jungle village, then we are going to find out
what we need to put back in Public Works. Every one of these departments covers
somewhere. I got folk right now, they’re not on the agenda, but I know how to make that
work, Mr. Mayor. While I’m talking, Stanley, bring those petitions there, hand them to
Ms. Bonner. I think you got about 800 of them to date that comes out of just one
neighborhood in Dyess Park, where we are there. If we abandon, is what I’m looking at
now, is that 30 in there will give us a chance not only to let the department heads work
through where they are, Mr. Mayor, it will allow just for instance what you were talking
about in some investment changes that we possibly can do to save money. We can also,
if we have to go to the hard fact that some of these things can’t be worked, it gives a
community, it gives a neighborhood association, it gives folk in these areas the
opportunity to plan and to put something together so that if there is a transition to deal
with it by somebody else, then it gives them a working period to do it. It’s not just cold
turkey to say you’re going to shut this center down, this park down in so many days.
(A round of applause is given.)
31
Mr. Mays: It needs to have a strategic plan of where we are out here on this. 30
days. We cannot do this in 30 seconds, I’m sorry. We’ve got one of the best numbers
ladies in the business. We put her under all kind of pressure, but we cannot do over-the-
counter business. In spite of the Administrator, we can’t do it that way. And not having -
- the second thing and third thing it does, Mr. Mayor, there has been a controversy, and I
support our Attorney, that we not advertise hearings of dealing with millage. 30 days
also gives the opportunity that if you’re going to have to probably deal with millage, even
though it will be vote on in September, it gives us the opportunity during this period to
hear from folk. You have mixed feelings out there, but I think if it’s PR’d properly, if
folk understand where we rank. Now the Administrator did a good job in his
presentation. I’m not battling him today. But the PowerPoint he put up on the board that
day in ranking us for this county, it was good for the Commissioners to see and those
who turned around and looked at it. That chart hadn’t been shown to any of the 200,000
other people who need to see it, who make decisions. They also need to know that in the
major cities and counties in Georgia, where we rank on our tax millage, somewhere all
the major counties rank between number one and number 20. You go through 100 other
spaces before you get to Richmond County. We cannot deal with providing certain
services as a town or a village and want to say we’ve got a dot on the map that’s now the
second-biggest dot when the quality of life does not equate to what you’re dealing with
with the second-largest city. And I support you, Andy, in where we’re going with it, but
would I would like to see if maybe we could support a substitute motion to totally deal
with a 30-day period, to go back and to look at where this is going to totally go. Marion,
you two have brought out everything that’s in there in terms of where this is going to hit,
from millions of dollars of investment in Riverwalk to the smallest park that we’ve got,
up and down the line. And let people, let us get cussed out. But I would have rather been
able to answer, Mr. Mayor, in a way which says to folk this is what it’s going to do, this
is what it’s not going to do, and realistically present to them and quit living the lie that
consolidation was birth and bred on, that all of a sudden we are going to save a whole lot
of money, we going to cut back this, we going to cut back that, when we know when we
are paying into it, we inherited a dysfunctional situation in a city which bragged about the
fact it hadn’t raised taxes in 14 years, it was understaffed in public safety, it had been
robbing water blind, it took us five years in county government to transfer that money
that we had and put it over there just to make that work until we could get bonds in order
to float it. We will not be able to one-item this budget to death, get it back, every week
While those are good that are in the motion, I
coming in here with a particular project.
would much rather see us, and if I could in that manner, deal with the moratorium,
I make that as a substitute motion to deal with this for 30 days, look at where it
affects and last but not least, let’s say if we have to make the painful decision that
somebody will not be here, if we have to do that and I hope we don’t, but if we have
to do that at least we can have a heart in this situation by saying to private industry
we can provide you a list of people that maybe we’re not longer working.
We have a
list here, the background checks are intact, these people are good working people. If
you’re going to hire somebody, hire them first. I think that gives us, Mr. Mayor, a
strategic way to do this rather than a hopscotch method of coming in at the last minute
when this I something that I repeat -- and I hate to say I told you so -- that should have
32
started after Halloween. Now, instead of getting a treat, we’re getting a trick. And we’re
in here today trying to get it straightened out, and the trick is going to be with us until
Easter and ain’t none of us going to rise again until we face the reality of the point that
what we got is not going to be dealt with until [inaudible]. That’s my substitute motion.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, let’s see if we can get a second.
Mr. Williams: Second to the substitute motion, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second to the substitute motion. Is there any further
discussion on the substitute motion for the 30-days moratorium?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Yes? Mr. Mayor, I really was going to comment -- I had my hand up
to comment on the first motion. And I don’t think we can sit here realistically and
continue to up the millage. I think if we’re going to do that, we are going to have to have
some time to look at this. I went along with the first one, to do that for the Fire
Department because I thought it really was a necessity that is needed. And although I’ve
listened to -- and I’m not saying what they have said is wrong, I think all of them have
valid rationale here as the things we should be doing. But we know that, we know we are
standing on the edge here wherein how do you do that? Right now, I don’t even know
where the millage is, and that’s why I’m saying I can’t continue to vote to increase the
millage because I don’t even know where it is at this point. We’ve done it twice -- we’ve
done it once and now we’re about to do it twice and then, you know, before long we will
be where somebody else will have some problem. I don’t have any problem with looking
at this in the future and trying to make some decision where this is going. I think we
could have done a PR job, because when we talked about Dyess Park, we weren’t talking
about -- most of the people who confronted me in Dyess Park were saying that we were
closing the park, we were closing the swimming pool. Well, that wasn’t quite true. But
that’s our fault because we didn’t get the PR relationship out there. There never was any
talk about partnership, which we have done at three or four of our centers, and that could
be done at Dyess Park. And I understand, the people don’t know this. So we didn’t do
our work in all of this, either. And maybe the time that we’re talking about, we can do
some of this. But we know that in this country, it is hard times and people are going to
have to bite the bullet, that we’re going to have to do some things that we don’t
necessarily want to do. And I know we all want a good quality of life for our citizens.
But we have to prioritize that. You know, is recreation -- should be put over public
safety? I mean these are some of the things that we are going to have to look at and
we’re going to have to look at very seriously. And when we make these decisions. And
I’m not going to -- although I think what has been said is good and it’s needed, but I
don’t think I can support a motion to raise the millage on every item that we’re talking
33
about here. I have no problem with maybe looking at this for 30 days or whatever we
have there, but to raise it I think we are going in the wrong direction.
Mr. Mayor: Rev. Hankerson, you want to speak to the motion?
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I am going to try it again. My senior
colleagues got prestige over me, but they’re talking about the same thing that I was going
to address the first time. I’m still -- I’m concerned about some items in this budget, but I
notice different ones of us have different concerns. I do agree with a lot that I’ve already
heard. But I’m trying to come up with some solutions also to some of the things that I’m
very interested in, and definitely I do not approve of so much of employees losing their
jobs in times like this. We are talking about 9-11, and we’re talking about recession, and
I think that before employees lose their jobs, I don’t think we need to be adding anything
new to a budget. I mean I’d like to go on record with that. I didn’t have the opportunity
to say it last week, but I do not approve of that. One thing about recreation centers when
they are closed, we can pay now or pay later.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Hankerson: If we have a structured program, we can stop some of these
youth from going to prison. I do some part-time at the prison. We can either stop them --
I visited one of the sites the other day and some young boys were playing on the gym
floor and one of the employees made a statement. I did not like the statement. He said
these kids don’t need to be here, they’re not in school, they’re in here playing ball. And I
said no, if there weren’t in here playing ball, they’d be breaking in your house. So we
need something structured. But looking at the Senior Citizen Nutrition Program, I want
to be an advocate for the senior citizens today, also. I did not see this in the resolution. I
don’t know whether that was still planning on being reduced because Mr. Beck said to
me that the senior citizens program -- and I’m concerned about Belle Terrace as well as
other sites -- that nutrition program is going to be -- the staff is going to be cut. So I’m
wondering whether it’s a possibility of reprogramming some of the Housing &
Neighborhood Development funds to save the Senior Citizen Nutrition Program, and I
would like to see Ms. Bonner place that on the Administrative Services Committee
agenda for our next meeting, to see whether it’s possible for us to use some of those
funds. They are senior citizens and I think they qualify for that.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Rev. Hankerson. Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, just three questions I have for clarification. Was out
total budget due December 31, with final numbers, bottom numbers?
Mr. Wall: We have to adopt a balanced budget by December 31.
Mr. Boyles: When will the millage rate be set?
34
Mr. Wall: The millage rate will be set after the digest is approved by the state,
which establishes the value of the digest, and then we look [inaudible] millage rate at that
time.
Mr. Boyles: At that point.
Mr. Wall: That’s in August.
Mr. Boyles: In August? All right. Do we have anything lose by taking a 30-day
moratorium and looking at this again? Because as a new Commissioner, and I think I
might can speak for Rev. Hankerson, too, we just have bits and pieces of the budget. It
was well presented, what we saw of it. We don’t know the -- when I saw the -- what we
were cutting from Public Works and what we were cutting from Recreation and then an
equal amount being taken from the rest of the departments -- I have no problem with the
bottom line. I’m opposed to continually raising the millage rate, but I would like to go
back and take 30 days and see if we can not balance the budget on the backs of our
citizens and the backs of the people we’re trying to serve. If 30 days wouldn’t hurt us, I
would certainly be in favor of that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, could you respond to that?
Mr. Kolb: Yes. Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, you have a reduction
in force plan in front of you that we were planning to implement as of tomorrow. Now
we have 60 days, and I believe -- I have not talked to Mr. Wall about that -- but since
your action was taken on December 28, the clock started on that day for the Commission,
through the Administrator, to notify the work force that there will be a RIF. So we’re
going to have to try and find funds to finance those 60 days and hopefully we’ll find it
towards the end of the year. So you would have 30 days or you could use that period of
time to look for alternative ways to finance those shortfalls.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Do I understand it, Mr. Kolb, that the agenda item that we
were presented when we came in today with respect to a RIF needs to be approved by the
Commission today?
Mr. Kolb: No. No, sir.
Mr. Mayor: It was handled administratively?
Mr. Kolb: It was approved as part of the budget and it’s included in your budget
resolution.
Mr. Mayor: So this was handed to us today for information purposes?
35
Mr. Kolb: That’s correct. And it was a “just in case” situation cause I wasn’t
sure last week.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Mr. Cheek and then Mr.
Mays.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I can support a 30-day moratorium on this as long as that
is the day we consider this a closed issue and we have everything done by the 30-day
window and we don’t drag this on forever. Also, I would like to say in terms of the
notice for the reduction in force, one of the ways of handling this is to universally send it
out and basically allow whoever gets laid off to be laid off, but that takes care of the
specific notices to specific individuals who we are not 100% sure of at this time, from
what I understand, but just to do a blanket release on this thing. That’s the way the
federal government handles it.
Mr. Kolb: Well, we’re pretty sure who will get notices, but they have the right to
exercise their bumping privileges, as well as fill other vacancies or apply for positions
that may be open. As long as we can continue on with the RIF, with the 30-day
moratorium, we could rescind that at any time. It’s much easier for us to reverse the
action rather than to just stop and have the 60 days start again.
Mr. Cheek: I guess that’s my point, is if we send the 60-day notice out
universally now, no matter who gets bumped, adjusted or whatever, then that covers the
entire work force, and the clock has started and that reduces us from being bound to
additional days of pay.
Mr. Mayor: Let me recognize the Mayor Pro Tem, who is trying to get a word in.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Yes, sir?
Mr. Colclough: Are we following the policy that I had in my hand in terms of
RIF?
Mr. Kolb: Yes, we are.
Mr. Colclough: Are you saying that the 60-day started at the time of December
28?
Mr. Kolb: Well, officially it’s your December 28 meeting. The action that you
th
took on the 28 of December to approve the budget in effect included a notice to the
workforce that there would be a reduction in force. There was an elimination of positions
that was proposed in the budget, and once you adopted that, that was official notice.
36
Mr. Colclough: So you’re saying that individual employees has been told they
would be laid off at this point? I’m asking a question. Has individual employees been
told that they would be laid off, Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Well, I hearing yes, but I’m not sure that an official letter has gone out
as of this time. I’d have to ask the staff.
Mr. Colclough: But folks has been told?
Mr. Kolb: Employees are aware of it but no official letter has been sent out.
Mr. Colclough: Certain employees has been told by the department head that they
would be laid off.
Mr. Kolb: Yes, that’s probably correct.
Mr. Colclough: Now is that in terms of policy, when there is no official notice
has gone out to these employees? A department head can arbitrarily walk up to me as an
employee and say you’re being RIF’d, but no official notice has gone out?
Mr. Kolb: Sure.
Mr. Colclough: They can? In the government?
Mr. Kolb: I believe they can, not as a part of official policy, but as a courtesy to
that employee. If a service is being cut and they read about it in the paper, I’d rather for
the department director to tell them that there is a chance that you could be part of that
process.
Mr. Colclough: No, no. “There’s a chance” and “you are being laid off” is two
different things.
Mr. Kolb: Yes, sir.
Mr. Colclough: Individual employees has been told by the department heads,
certain department heads, that you will be laid off, but there is no official notice has gone
out to these people?
Mr. Kolb: The official notice will go out.
Mr. Colclough: I think we’re still ducking the issue. I’m just asking is it legal in
terms of a department head to arbitrarily tell an employee that when no official
notification has gone out, that you will be laid off?
Mr. Kolb: If you’re asking for whether or not it’s legal, I can’t answer that. My
feeling is --
37
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Wall, is that legal?
Mr. Wall: It is not following the policy because the policy calls for the
department -- the Administrator to notify the department director that there will be a
necessity of layoff. The department director is then to identify the people that would
have to be laid off. And then that come back to the Administrator. You know, I think -- I
don’t know specifically what was told to any employee. What I think Mr. Kolb is
suggesting that as a matter of courtesy to those employees that are expected to be affected
by the reduction in force, is it appropriate for them to be told? Absolutely. Is that the
official notification that they are the ones, in fact, to lose their jobs? No, it is not.
Mr. Colclough: One other question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Colclough: Is there a policy of longevity of last-hired/first-fired or how this
works? Or anybody in my department I can lay off?
Mr. Wall: This a combination of factors that the --
Mr. Colclough: The policy talks about people with special skills. If that
department head wanted to retain that person, they would have to submit in writing to the
Administrator that these people have special skills that is needed to keep this department
going and they would like to retain this individual. Now that’s one part of the policy, but
it seems to me that there is no method to the madness that we’re talking about in laying
somebody off. I have read the whole thing. That’s why I’m asking the questions.
Because certain employees have been told that you will lose your job, and I’m just
wondering did somebody follow this policy? That’s why I’m asking the questions, to get
clarifications.
Mr. Wall: Well, paragraph three talks about length of service -- the three factors
to be weighed equally: length of service in the class, length of service with the
government, and performance evaluations for the past three years. And the two affected
department directors did meet with HR and I received more than one inquiry from them
about the implementation of this. So they are aware of the fact that they are to go
through and to weigh those factors.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, just one thing.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Boyles brought a point out and I’d
just like to comment, one comment on that. He said that we don’t need to balance the
budget on the backs of lower employees and I’m thinking what have we done to look at
the top level of management and making cuts, rather than cutting those people on the
38
ground level? As opposed to trying to balance some things around. And I hear what our
Attorney just said to our Mayor Pro Tem as to three things that was -- the reason for
being dismissed. Have we looked at those upper levels? Are we just looking at those
with lower pay scales and whatever? And what I’m thinking about is there is positions
that may be paying $50,000 a year, just using that number. And you got somebody in the
upper level and upper management making $50,000 a year who maybe hadn’t been there
very long, then you’ve got somebody in the lower level, which that could operate two
salaries on, that’s been there for eight to ten years. And these people being told they’re
being laid off. I don’t think we’re looking at this right, if we have to do that. I just
wanted to bring it out as a point, Mr. Mayor, we don’t need no comment on it.
Mr. Mayor: Let me make an observation, if I may, and that is we’re getting into
specific areas that would be addressed by this body and by these various committees
during this 30-day period if we go ahead with the moratorium. So if we could move
forward with the motion on the moratorium, then I think we could more appropriately
deal with a lot of these issues and questions that you’re asking here today which
obviously aren’t going to be decided today. Mr. Bridges, and then I’ll go ahead, if we
can, to get the question called on the substitute motion.
Mr. Bridges: On the moratorium, the question, I’ve got, if we put it on now and
we start it up again, we have to go through the procedure again, so it is having a financial
effect on the budget, Jim; is that correct?
Mr. Wall: You’re right. If the -- the motion, as I understood it, was there to be a
moratorium on the reduction in force and the reduction of services. If that moratorium is
implemented, then the 60 days stops. And once a decision is made to either reinstate the
reduction in force, then there is [inaudible].
Mr. Bridges: [inaudible] financial cost that’s involved here.
Mr. Mayor: During that 30-day period, you could save some money by having a
hiring freeze, a freeze on discretionary spending, some of those other issues that would
slow down the pace of spending for 30 days, so you don’t get yourself deeper into a hole.
It’s just a management process that Mr. Kolb and the staff would go through for those 30
days.
Mr. Kolb: Sure. That we could.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: We might need a point of clarification on when this clock starts
ticking and when it stops ticking. Are we in a full 60-day realm, or are we talking about
dealing with the 30, to work through the process, and wherever we go from there, I
thought that’s where we start back with the 60. Because the intent of my motion is that if
39
we work some things through the 30, we’ve assumed automatically and part of what was
voted on that y’all did with the budget, was to deal with X number of persons to get
under the RIF program. Well, then if you’ve got some departments, as I mentioned
earlier, that are already working through that process, where those numbers have already
changed, that if you get some others that are working harder in there, it may mean -- I
keep hearing about what’s going to happen with the 60 days and the increase and what
cost us -- it may cost us less, because number one, if you find some way to resolve the 57,
the 47, or what it might be, 60 days may become hopefully a moot point, in terms of what
you’re dealing with. So I just wanted to make sure that we weren’t talking about 30 days
running simultaneously with the clocking ticking, because I asked the Attorney that and I
got a big mouth and I got some big ears, too, and I’m hearing out of that table that you
may have been talking about running my 30 while you was running your 60. And I just
want to make that clear that the 30 puts the brakes on what you’re doing and that it goes
toward in terms of trying to find those creative ways to hopefully make this thing work.
Mr. Mayor: I think that’s been made clear and everybody understands that.
Mr. Wall: That is correct. Let me address this if I may, and I throw this out as an
idea.
Mr. Mayor: Don’t go too far, Mr. Wall, I’m trying to get a vote on the motion.
Mr. Wall: But you’ve also talked about a hiring freeze. On your Recreation
Department, for instance, there are four vacancies in the proposed area. I mean do you
want to implement a hiring freeze for this 30-day period for those specified positions?
Mr. Mayor: If you’re trying to save money across the organization, that’s a
management issue that would have to be dealt with by the Administration.
Mr. Kolb: I would prefer to manage the hiring freeze as part of this and leave it to
my discretion. There may be some positions that are critical that we must fill.
Mr. Mayor: I think you’re just trying to slow down the pace of spending for 30
days just so you don’t find yourself in the hole at the end of the year.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
Mr. Mays: I have no problem with that. Those day-to-day employees, as well as
Department Heads, are under the direction of Mr. Kolb and he manages them and the
ones that they manage are also under him indirectly. But I think we ought to know, as
critical is this situation is, because you are [inaudible] off, and I’m not looking at folk by
name, any of them, I’m looking at operations of what it does in effect, and I think as we
go along with this, we are almost on a daily monitorship of what this is going to do. So I
just hope that that information is disseminated in such a way. And I personally say it
40
because -- maybe I shouldn’t have [inaudible], somehow or another I get the Convention
& Visitors Bureau, Andy, that we won’t have any money to promote [inaudible], and I
got Recreation and Parks and Transit and everything else that’s going to get cut first. But
I can deal with that. I been down that road before, Mr. Mayor, but I just wanted to make
sure we know where we’re going. If the Administrator is going manage it, I want it
shared management to a point that we know what this is, that we’re not at the point of a
meeting, and that we are voting on the sound of [inaudible]. That’s all.
Mr. Mayor: Well, I would suggest that each one of the agendas for the standing
committees for this next two meetings in this 30-days cycle that you discuss the budgets
of those agencies and departments that are under each one of the committees, and
monitor it as you say. That would be the way to do it.
Mr. Mays: And Mr. Mayor, I’d like to say this. It’s not in my motion, and I’m
going to take Bill. Bill and I, we don’t -- both of us -- we find a way to make our money
stretch. When we meet, we like to meet early in the morning and whoever is late, they
pay. But if in this 30-day process, unofficially, if we can pair off with each other in this
process, because we are getting lot -- we don’t get a lot of calls -- we’re going to get them
mixed in terms of where services are cut, we’re going to get it to a point of what we don’t
want to do. But I think if we pick a partner to share some of this with, in twos, and to
deal with part of this of where we are going, this will help us a lot during this 30-day
period, to hopefully get through part of this. That way, somebody has a chance to get
[inaudible] in terms of thinking [inaudible] and that’s just a suggestion that we do. Bill
going to have to run me off. We got the same names so that’s my working partner in
that. [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ll call the question on the substitute motion, which is
for the 30-day moratorium. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Bridges and Mr. Kuhlke vote No.
Motion carries 8-2.
(A round of applause is given.)
39. Discuss Reduction-In-Force Plan (RIF). (Requested by Commissioner Mays)
[Included in discussion of Item 38]
Mr. Mayor: All right, that renders item number 39 moot. Mr. Kolb, that’s the
reduction in force. That takes us to item number 40.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATOR:
40. Consider increased hours for sale of alcoholic beverages.
41. Consider recommendations from the Administrator regarding funding
sources for the Augusta and Lucy Laney Museums.
41
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, during your budget meeting
you asked us to look at various financing ways that we could look at to finance the
Augusta History Museum and the Lucy Laney Museum and their budget requests. And I
believe that the action was that the Convention & Visitors Bureau would finance
$300,000 to the Augusta History Museum and we’d find some way to advance or come
up with the money for the other museum. After reviewing the ordinance, one suggestion
was to increase the number of hours that alcoholic beverages and nightclubs and
restaurants would be available, to generate additional revenue. We prepared to -- I’ll let
Mr. Wall talk more about that ordinance if you so desire -- we have prepared that
ordinance, but after we discussed it in length, and in general, and looked at potential
revenue that comes from it, we are very much concerned it may create more problems
than it would raise revenue. For one thing, increasing the number of hours that an
establishment is open may cause an increase in cost for police services. Number two,
we’re not sure if patrons are going to want to stay or how many patrons are going to want
to stay past the two o’clock hour. So it’s really difficult to determine what the financial
impact would be. Nevertheless, the ordinance is prepared. There is a chance that you
could raise significant revenue if people do want to frequent those hours. However, we
also looked at some other possible sources of revenue, including looking -- and we have
not, in the short period of time between last Thursday and today, with the holidays -- we
have not been able to look at them thoroughly to determine whether or not those would
be potential sources, but you could entertain the idea of looking at your rental car tax, you
could entertain the idea of looking at a new entertainment tax, and at what level we don’t
know at this time. We are concerned that perhaps the hotel/motel tax has got some quirk
in it, for lack of a better word -- consider this, that the number of hotel rooms in Augusta
has increased over the last three years. Quite normally, the cost of a hotel room has
increased over the last three years. The number of tourists coming to town over the last
three years has increased. But your hotel/motel tax has not. And so therefore, we need to
investigate that and determine what is the problem and why that is. If it is found that
there is something going on, then that potentially could be another source of revenue. I
guess what I’m saying is that we need more time to study it. However, in the meantime
what we’re recommending is that the Augusta History Museum and the Lucy Laney
Museum receiving funding from the CVB for about a six-month period of time, or to an
amount to be agreed upon by the museums. As I understand it, Commissioner Williams,
to his credit, has negotiated with the History Museum of receiving $225,000 and $75,000
would go to the Laney Museum. That would buy you six months at least, and it would
give us time. Because even if you did get legislation passed, it more likely than not
would not go into effect prior to July 1, so that would at least get them to July 1, give us
an opportunity explore additional sources of revenue, communicate with our Legislative
Delegation to see what kind of ideas they have, without impacting on existing taxes or
existing services and just create all kinds of controversy. So that’s my report. I’ll be
happy to answer questions.
42
Mr. Mayor: Let me recognize the Sheriff, because I think he had some thoughts
he wanted to share on potentially increasing hours for the sale of alcoholic beverages.
Mr. Strength: I agree 100% with what Mr. Kolb has said. If we increase these
hours, it’s going to definitely increase the number of calls we answer. It’s kind of long
the dog chasing his tail. Then I’m going to have to ask you folks for more people to
police these nightclubs, and then I’m going to have you for more money to build me pods
because we are going to be putting more people in jail. So increasing those hours would
hamper us. I definitely do oppose it and I don’t think there is a benefit there. There’s a
lot of negative there for me, and I think for the community. These people get pretty well
soused by two o’clock. We sure don’t give them to four o’clock to get even more. I
don’t think we are going to have more people drinking, I think we are going to have
people drinking more, and that’s all that we would get out of that, so I see no benefit to
that whatsoever, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, did you want to speak to the [inaudible] and then we’ll
recognize the Commissioners?
Mr. Wall: Well, currently, for on-premise consumption of beer, wine and liquor,
between Monday and Friday the limitation is from 8 a.m. Monday morning until 2:30
a.m. the following morning. And what I have proposed in the draft ordinance is changing
it 4 o’clock a.m. On package shops, off-premise consumption of liquor currently is from
8 a.m. on Monday through 11:45 -- well, 8 a.m. until 11:45 p.m. every day, with the
exception of Sunday, and proposing to change that from 8 a.m. to 1 o’clock a.m., except
on Saturday, and on Saturday it would still close at 11:45 p.m. And that is what I
understood to extend the hours that was being proposed, and that’s what I prepared in the
ordinance.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I was very encouraged when one of our citizens brought
this suggestion to us. Frankly, I think this is something that I think would be certainly
worthy of a one-year pilot, if not full implementation. Increases in calls, while that’s a
potential, it takes place after the shift change, and a net total increase is probably
speculative best at this point in time. Also, patrons, whether they want to stay out that
late or not, that’s not our problem. That’s the private sector’s problem and their
determination of whether they have the ability to stay open or not, whether it makes
economic sense to them or not, is the big question. This allows them to stay open when
revenues may be generated, which would be more revenues coming back into this
government. Hopefully, if there are some increases in calls, that will correspond nicely
to a large increase in revenue and therefore would be able to support that. But to kill it
outright on speculation to me is probably one of the problems that this government has
had for a long time, as well as backing away from its commitment to promoting this city
and reducing its amenities to its citizens first. This is a way potentially to increase
revenue, with a minimum impact to the city. It is certainly something we ought to try. If
it doesn’t work after a year, we can make the alterations to the time frame. Other cities
43
are doing it. The businesses are already in place. The licenses are already in place. This
is an opportunity for raising revenue with a minimum impact to the workforce and to the
community, and I think it’s worth a try. In this day and age, we can’t afford to be pickers
and choosers of what may be best or what may not be best. This is at least worth a look-
see for a year. I’d like to make the motion that we look at extending the ours for the
period of one year on a trial basis, to see, at that point to judge the impact on the city,
both financial pluses and minuses, personnel pluses and minuses, and reevaluate it at the
end of the year.
Mr. Mayor: And that would be consistent with the ordinance that was drafted by
Mr. Wall? And would you waive the second reading of that?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. So we’ll include that in the motion. Is there a second to that
motion?
Mr. Wall: It takes unanimous consent to waive a second reading.
Mr. Mayor: It does?
Mr. Shepard: You don’t have unanimous consent, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We don’t have a second, either. The motion dies for lack of a
second. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, in the absence of a second of the primary motion, I’d
ask that this matter be sent through the committee system. I notice the absence of back-
up in this book today, on this material, and I think we ought to look at revenue increases
where they won’t affect ad valorem property taxpayers. We’ve already been in their
pockets potentially for Fire Protection and Law Enforcement already. This Commission
did not wish the recession that we’re currently suffering from upon this country. We
have to cope with it, whether we like it or not. This Commission certainly did not wish
the events of 9-11-01 on anybody, but we’ve got to cope with it. That’s just the way we
are, we’ve got a duty to do, gentlemen, and it’s not necessarily pleasant duty but five of
us just give an oath, and a loyalty oath, that we would do our duty as we see it, and there
are tough decisions to be made. There were tough decisions to be made in the budget.
Six of us voted affirmatively for those tough decisions, and I understand all that, but I
think Mr. Kolb should be given the opportunity to examine these revenue potentials. The
other indications he’s had, he’s talked about a motor vehicle rental car tax, this kind of
thing. We just visited that within this Commissioner’s tenure, which has to be within the
So I’d say let’s send this to the Finance Committee and give it some
last four years.
more study and it be returned, not the meeting next week, George, but to give you
an opportunity to give it two weeks -- two meetings down the line.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
44
Mr. Mayor: A second to that motion. Okay. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, along the same lines, we’ve also had -- we’ve got a 30-
day moratorium on this, and I think this is the proper time, instead of trying to hassle out
things here on the table today, additional revenue funds, I think we ought to utilize that
time and have whatever recommendations we are going to come up with and get kind of a
better understanding of what we can do, what the impact will have on each item, and on
both 40 and 41. Let’s do it within that period of time and see, so we’ll know where we’re
going.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m not going to comment too much on
the alcohol increased hours. I think that we need revenue in this city and I preach against
that. They can close them all as far as I’m concerned, [inaudible] needed. But I just
think that we’ve got to do something to create some money, some funds in this area, to
continue the services that we want to provide for the people. But I want to make a
comment on what the Administrator said about the two museums. I did meet with both
museums. We did agree that they can survive with giving the Augusta Museum the
$225,000 and giving the Laney Museum $75,000 and appoint a subcommittee to try and
find a permanent source. And if the tax for the hotel/motel is something we can do, but
appoint a subcommittee to come up with a permanent source to try to find a way so we
don’t have to come back and fight this battle ever year.
Mr. Mayor: We already have a committee, and you chair it, don’t we?
Mr. Williams: Well, we met and that last committee did not wait on the
subcommittee. I think Commissioner Kuhlke came back and we made a commitment to
award the funds to the Augusta Museum. But that same subcommittee, and I can still
chair it. I got no problem, Mr. Mayor, I mean I’m willing to do whatever is necessary to
We
see it grow and be what it can be. But I do want to comment that we did do that.
met with those museums and if I can make it in the form a motion, that we do give
them the $225,000 and the $75,000 and give us the six months to try to find the
remaining balance of both museums and what they requested this year.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to second that motion, but don’t we have a
motion already on the floor from Commissioner Shepard that we need to vote on?
Mr. Mayor: Well, Mr. Shepard’s motion is relative to the increased hours for
alcohol sales.
Mr. Kuhlke: Right.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams has made a substitute motion to fund the two museums
from the hotel/motel tax from the CVB.
45
Mr. Kuhlke: And I seconded that motion.
Mr. Mayor: And you seconded that. And Mr. Wall is trying to find out exactly
what -- what we need to do to accomplish this. Do we have a change in ordinance or
something?
Mr. Wall: Well, it is an ordinance. What I’m trying -- George is saying that the
$225,000 and the $75,000 would come from the CVB. But this is something that we
would carve out by ordinance and give to the museums as we’re currently doing, the
$300,000 ---
Mr. Kuhlke: It’s just a continuation of what we are already doing, except that we
are giving the Augusta Museum of History $225,000 and Laney, so you would amend the
ordinance to include that.
Mr. Wall: All right. The second question is, you talk about six months. Is the
$225,000 an annual number or is that money that would be paid out over a six-month
period?
Mr. Kuhlke: Six-month period.
Mr. Wall: Okay.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Mr. White, can you speak to that? Can you answer that question?
Would you come to the podium, please, so we can get you in the minutes?
Mr. White: The $300,000 would be for one year, so if you did it for six months, it
would be half of that amount, divided by the two.
Mr. Wall: That’s what I’m trying to understand.
Mr. Williams: What I thought, Mr. Wall, was that we would give the $300,000 to
that museum and the $150,000 to Laney Museum, but we were give them $225,000 now
until we can come up with another source, to give Laney $75,000 until we can find those
funds to match the remaining $75,000 that they would need and the $75,000 that the
Laney Museum would need.
Mr. White: I think in order to give those amount, $225,000 and $75,000, you
need to amend the ordinance.
Mr. Williams: And that’s what Mr. Kuhlke stated, I think, that we need to amend
the ordinance in order to do that.
46
Mr. Kuhlke: For a year.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have that clarified now? We have a motion and a second.
Mr. Beard, want to discuss this?
Mr. Beard: Since we’ve jumped to 41 or whatever we jumped to here, 41, I don’t
know where we are, I don’t know what we’re talking about, and I’m not voting on -- but
the amounts, these amounts that we’re talking about I am not ready to vote for that, and I
think we need a little time and this is what happened when we jump up here, and maybe
I’m just slow and not feeling too well either, but I just can’t see where we are going to
jump up here and decide what we are going to do here and half of us up here don’t even
know what we’re talking about.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, if I can, I need to make another comment now. Cause
we been doing this every year for the last two years I’ve been here, Mr. Beard, and I
understand what you’re saying. But subtract $75,000 from $300,000 is easy to me, and
that’s what we’re trying to do here now, is to go ahead and give the Laney Museum
$75,000 and give the Augusta Museum $225,000.
Mr. Beard: Where is the funding source?
Mr. Williams: The funding source --
Mr. Kuhlke: It’s CVB.
Mr. Kolb: Hotel/motel tax and there is one -- I’m hoping that you’ll understand
as the maker of the motion, that would be for a year. The ordinance would be amended
for a year.
Mr. Williams: A year. That’s right. A year.
Mr. Kolb: No more would be considered until we had an alternative funding
source for those two agencies.
Mr. Williams: And I thought that was what we had said, Mr. Kolb. But I don’t
understand how we can get confused on that. I just want to know.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I call for a parliamentary ruling here. We are dealing
with item 40, but I think we are discussing item 41, and I think my motion spoke to the
additional revenues from increased revenues of alcoholic beverage sales, whether we do
it or not.
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
47
Mr. Shepard: And the Administrator’s proposal is for other revenue sources,
whether we do them or not. I think we need to dispose of that, don’t we, Jim, then go on
to 41, which relates to a division of revenues? We’ve got two debates going here on two
items so isn’t the second as to the division between the two museums non-germane to the
first?
Mr. Wall: Yes. But I mean the two items were combined for discussion.
Mr. Speaker: Exactly right.
Mr. Mayor: And we’ll vote on both of the motions.
Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll take Mr. Williams’ substitute motion first. We’ll vote on that.
That’s the interim funding for the museums. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
[Vote on Item 41]
Mr. Beard and Mr. Cheek vote No.
Motion carries 8-2.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to Mr. Shepard’s motion, which would send the
matter of increasing the hours for sale of alcoholic beverages, send that to Finance. Yes,
sir?
Mr. Kolb: And also I’m assuming for alternative funding sources?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, it’s meant to study alternative funding sources.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Just to add to that. I would not like to lose what Commissioner
Kuhlke said earlier. We need to look at departments and other things for cuts. Also we
need to look at things like furloughs and so forth, as ways to reduce the impact on the
General fund.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of Commissioner Shepard’s motion, please vote aye.
[Vote on Item 40]
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
48
Mr. Mays: I don’t thing it would have any bearing in reference to where we send
it to committee, but I think [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Well, I think it would appropriate for him to speak to the Finance
Committee because that’s where the issue is headed. He’s already spoken to the full
Commission. All right, I don’t think we have anything else on the agenda, do we, other
than the legal meeting. Do you have something?
Mr. Wall: Well, if I could. Let me suggest that you reconsider item number 18.
Mr. Reece has pointed out to me where as that was the four-year taxes, it is three years
from the date the taxes were paid, is the statutory provision, and I had assumed that the
’97 taxes were paid in ’97. In fact, the ’97 taxes were not paid until January of 2001. So
therefore you would be authorized to refund all taxes paid within the three years, which
would encompass the ’97 taxes, if y’all want to reconsider it.
Mr. Bridges: I move that we reconsider Item 18.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Is there discussion on the motion to reconsider? Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Yes. Jim, let me -- they paid ’97 taxes in 2001?
Mr. Wall: Correct.
Mr. Bridges: In other words, they were late paying their true taxes?
Mr. Wall: That’s right.
Mr. Bridges: I mean that --
Mr. Wall: It is an inconsistency, but that’s the way the law reads. It measures
from the date the taxes are paid, so the person who pays the taxes in ’97 is penalized but
the person who waits until 2001 gets the benefit of it.
Mr. Bridges: But they did pay the penalty and that kind of thing on the true
taxes?
Mr. Wall: Yes.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to reconsider. It’s been seconded. All in favor of
reconsidering, please vote aye. This is item number 18, a motion to reconsider.
Mr. Kuhlke: That’s for all four years?
49
Mr. Mayor: No, we’re going to get to it. We’ll get there. We’re just
reconsidering at now. Just to reconsider. It is not a vote on the merits of it, it is just a
reconsideration.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Now the issue is back on the floor. Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: And you would be authorized, since the ’97 taxes were not paid until
2001, the ’98 taxes were paid in ’98 and the ’99 were paid in ’99 and the 2000 were paid
in 2000, but since the ’97 taxes were paid within that three-year window, you would be
authorized to refund them.
Mr. Bridges: And we would not be violating the law or establishing any
precedent in this regard, and they did pay, when they paid in 2001, they did pay all
interest and penalties for ’97, ’98 and ’99?
Mr. Reece: ’98 and ’99 and 2000 were paid in a timely manner?
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Reece: ’97 was paid with penalty and interest.
Mr. Bridges: A motion that we approve this as printed in our book.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to the motion?
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, I’ve got a question.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough, you’re next.
Mr. Colclough: They were late paying the taxes for ’97; when they paid it in
2001 or 2002; which one?
Mr. Reece: 2001.
Mr. Colclough: 2001. So they paid late penalties with interest?
Mr. Reece: That is correct.
Mr. Colclough: Now we’re going to give it back to them?
50
Mr. Reece: That is correct.
Mr. Bridges: Wait a minute. I’m misunderstanding something here. They paid
taxes twice. They paid ’97 twice?
Mr. Reece: No.
Mr. Bridges: That’s what the back-up says.
Mr. Wall: That’s not what Sonny told me.
Mr. Reece: They paid the taxes twice. The paid [inaudible] on time, and they
paid the other taxes -- all right, if you look at your supporting information, we had been --
our office had been sending business returns to two different locations. I mean to two
different businesses, same location. And they were paying it. One was under the Walden
Hall Christian School and one was under Montessori School. Children’s Friend Learning
Centers d/b/a Montessori School. They got the two years’ worth of tax bills. And they
paid ’97 on time. The first one. ’97 on time, ’98 on time, ’99 on time, 2000 on time.
They came to notice that the taxes, the 2000 -- the 1997 taxes were delinquent on one of
the accounts. Hadn’t been paid. So they paid those in January of 2001. That’s when Mr.
Saul’s notified them of the delinquency. They paid those with penalty and interest. They
have already paid the other ’97 timely. The other four years. The other account. It’s a
duplication of accounts.
Mr. Bridges: So we’re really not losing any money at all in doing this?
Mr. Reece: No, sir. We collected the money. We billed them twice is what it
amounts down to. They are two different businesses, and when they paid the taxes in
July, when they got the delinquent bill, and paid in January of 2001, that’s when the
accounting section, their bookkeepers came back to us and wrote a letter in July of 2001
telling us that they’ve been paying the same account twice.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: All right, anyone else have a question or comment?
Mr. Shepard: So Sonny, we are eliminating a duplication here; that’s all we’re
doing?
Mr. Reece: That’s all it is.
Mr. Shepard: We’re refunding them.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor to do what the caption in the agenda
book says to do. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
51
Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Did you have anything for legal, Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: I’m going to suggest -- there is nothing that is time sensitive. I was to
talk about some lawsuits that were filed at the end of the year, but unless -- in view of the
weather, I’m going to suggest that we defer that to the next Commission meeting.
Mr. Shepard: Move we adjourn.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to adjourn. Is there a second? Discussion?
We’re adjourned without objection.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and
correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on January 2, 2002.
Clerk of Commission
52